The Need for Mass Outrage, Civil Disobedience

There was an opinion piece in The New York Times recently that criticized President Obama for wagging his finger at the younger generation who get off on being judgmental and insist on purity.  “That’s not activism.  That’s not bringing about change,  If all you’re doing is casting stones, that probably won’t get you far.”  The opinion writer was very offended and criticized the older generation’s way of doing things.  She embraced the power of social media.

This is a hard one. We, young and old liberals/progressives, want to effect change. That's the bottom line. The question is how best to get there. 

There are situations where a zero tolerance approach is appropriate, where we should express our outrage, en masse. In the street, not just on your screen.  Sometimes, enough people expressing outrage can by its own power effect change, either by toppling those in power or having those in power accept change. 

More frequently though, the world is so complex and resistance to change so strong that even masses expressing outrage in public protest will not in and of itself effect change. But that mass expression of outrage is still important, for only then can people with access to power follow up by arguing for change, at least incremental. 

Indeed, I would argue that we need more mass expressions of outrage, such as we had against the Vietnam War.  And it can’t be just once and done.  There must be an extended series of protests.  Those in power must see that the opposition has staying power; that they haven’t spent all their energy on one demonstration and then it’s back to business as unusual.

Now when it comes to negotiating with those in power, you have the best chance of success when they don’t have their backs up.  The problem with many young progressives and some older ones too is that they don't just state the facts, they don’t just argue, they bully and are full of hatred. 

That is not the way to influence people. A good example of this is Rep. Ilhan Omar. I agree with much of what she says, but as I've said in previous posts, she often says it in a way which is counter-productive. She is her own worst enemy, in terms of being effectual. 

Obama's point was not to castigate those who argue for change. His point was that one needs to do so in a way that will effectuate change. Sometimes, perhaps often, that will require compromise. And that should not be a dirty word. You do not sell out if you compromise. Rather, if you insist on purity, you will almost never effect change and thus truly betray your cause.

The Problem with a President Bernie Sanders

Senator Sanders is a good, intelligent, forthright man.  His heart is in the right place.  And he certainly believes strongly about what is right and what is wrong.

But there’s a problem with Sanders as President.  It lies in primarily two areas:  rhetoric and policy development.

When it comes to rhetorical style, Bernie Sanders and his fire-breathing progressive allies share much with Donald Trump.  It is confrontational in both tone and substance.  As Trump and many autocrats have shown, this is certainly the way to build a devoted, unwavering base.

But such a style and the unwavering … dare one say, unthinking … political support it engenders does not bode well for the future of our democracy.  If Sanders, or AOC (Ocasio-Cortez), or Trump say something, their followers take it as gospel truth and praise the speaker.  A healthy democracy depends on people thinking, sifting through competing ideas, not leaving it to leaders to think.

This style also exacerbates the us v them aspect of politics and social dynamic.  Before the recent extreme polarization of American politics, people were usually sorely disappointed when they lost an election, but the call by all was for unity, for forming a “loyal” opposition.  In Congress or elsewhere, there were political disagreements, people took their stands, but it was with the feeling that everyone had the country’s best interest at heart and so there was civility in the midst of disagreement.  People could agree to disagree.

Gone are those days.  While the problem started with Senator Dole's very negative relationship with President Clinton during his 2nd term, it became all -consuming when Obama was President and Republicans in Congress, led by Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, decided that they were just going to say, “no,” to anything floated by Obama; their only purpose in Congress was to defeat him.  It went so far as to not giving Obama’s 2016 Supreme Court nominee a hearing in order to keep the slot open should a Republican win the next election, even though that was almost 8 months away and the start of the new term 10 months away.

There is a danger in Sander’s campaign style as with the combative style of some of the newly-elected progressives in the House.  The danger is that you may win some battles, but you will ultimately lose the war. You will not change the culture/government in the ways you would like because you have alienated many rather than generated good will among your opponents.

The other problem with Sanders as President comes in the all-important area of policy development.  Let’s take as an example Sander’s Medicare-for-All.  A wonderful idea, but as I explained in my post, “Medicare for All or Some?” not the way to ultimately get to where he wants to be ... universal single-payer coverage.  But Sanders has no use for discussing all the problems, all the dislocation, inherent in implementing his health plan should it pass.  

I draw from this, in combination with his rhetorical style, that Sanders is not a reasonable man … meaning that one cannot reason with him and he can’t employ reason with those not on his team, convincing them to support him or finding a place for compromise where both sides win.  It’s like W saying, “Either you’re with us or against us.”  Like it’s impossible to imagine the reality of someone being on your side but having a difference of opinion on tactics.  What we very much need in a President is a reasonable man.

So I was not for Sanders in 2016 and I’m not for him now.  But not for the reasons of the Democratic Party establishment.  Not because he fights the larger ills of our culture and government.  Not because he sees the ills of capitalism.  Not because he thinks the super rich are richer than they need be.  I have no problem with any of those positions.

It is rather because his rhetorical style will leave us with a country which drifts even further apart.  Where the concept of an American social contract is even more distant.  Where the phrase “my fellow Americans” becomes an unimaginable anachronism.

ATTN: Liberals and Conservatives - What Is the Role of Government?

In these days of enraged people on both sides of the political spectrum, it would be helpful to take a deep breath, step back from the battle, and ask the question, “What is the role of government?”  Specifically, our government.  In answering this question we look to our founding documents.

According to the Constitution the purpose of government is to "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity.”  If we look at the Declaration of Independence the role is defined more broadly, which is “to secure” the unalienable rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”  I say more broadly because everything stated in the Constitution is necessary if one is to be able to pursue life, liberty, and happiness.

Clearly the role of government is an active one.  Words such as “insure,”  “provide,” “promote,” and “secure” are all verbs denoting an ongoing active responsibility.

There are two aspects of the role as stated in both these documents that deserve focus.  First the Constitution refers to promoting the “general Welfare.”  This is clearly a statement that government must look to the welfare of all its citizens, not just some.  It is the general welfare that is important, not just the welfare of some segments of society.  Taken together with the Declaration’s statement that “all men are created equal” and have “unalienable rights,” our founding documents clearly stand for the value and the rights of each and every citizen, of all segments of society.

The second aspect I will focus on is that both documents state that the role of government is to “secure” what the Constitution broadly characterizes as “the blessings of liberty,” and which the Declaration more particularly describes as the rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

To what extent has our government lived up to its responsibilities as set forth in our founding documents?  

First, let’s get one thing straight … regardless the political party in power or the era, the United States has harbored huge inequality, not just regarding wealth but well-being.  This is true despite all the social welfare programs that were enacted in the 20th century.  While one can talk about the poor being worse off or better off under a particular administration, and one can say that materially the poor are better off in modern times than ever, their state of well-being remains a negative one.  (Perhaps this is why so many of the poor don’t vote; why they say it doesn’t make a difference who is in power, which liberals find maddening.)  

Why is life for the poor degrading?  Widespread discrimination, unequal access to quality education, substandard housing to name perhaps the most important factors.  This negative well-being has in turn spawned an environment of gangs, violence, and drugs which haw made a bad situation that much worse.  Note:  it is not poverty itself that makes life degrading, it is these attendant factors.

This is true regardless whether one is looking at people of color or whites, urban or rural.  And, to counter a widely held perception, while the majority of those living in poverty are people of color, 44% are white.  In 2018, the figures were white - 44%, black - 23%, Hispanic - 28%, and Asian - 5%.  Yes, blacks disproportionately commit more crimes and engage in drug trafficking, but they also suffer disproportionately more discrimination, bad education, and substandard housing.  Many whites blame blacks for inflicting the drugs and violence environment on themselves, but such accusations totally overlook the role of the white-imposed reality of life for blacks in America.

Bottom line.  Government has not promoted the general welfare.

From the foregoing, it is also clear that government has not secured the “blessings of liberty” for a large proportion of Americans (40 million people live poverty, 12.3% of the population).  The charge is not that government hasn’t provided these blessings, because that is not government’s role.  

It’s role is to secure the “right” to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.   What does that mean?  It means that government has the responsibility for insuring that all citizens have an equal opportunity to pursue their right to life, liberty, and happiness.  What an individual makes of that right is his or her responsibility.  

So for example, it is government’s role to insure that the education provided in all schools is of equivalent quality.  That is sadly far from the case.  It is government’s responsibility to insure that there is no discrimination by educating children and adults about equality, passing appropriate laws, and vigorously enforcing them.  It is government’s responsibility to insure that no one lives in substandard housing through building codes, etc. that are vigorously enforced.  Then there is the right to vote.  Before the Voting Rights Act of 1964, Blacks were routinely denied the vote in much of the South.  In recent years, Republican forces have been attacking this right in a deceitful way which primarily impacts poor people of color in order to reduce Democratic voter turnout.

While government has certainly made advances in addressing these issues, most have been half-hearted.  None have come even close to fundamentally changing the status quo.

The one area where government’s effort to secure a right has been to a large extent successful has been in the area of access to health care.  Through Medicaid, the vast majority of people living in poverty have health insurance.  There are still problems of health care access, especially in rural areas, but this nevertheless has largely been a successful effort.  And it has been made even more so with the passage of Obamacare and its expansion of Medicaid.

So what do we do with the basic fact that our government is not truly fulfilling its role.  It’s doing many things it should be doing, and probably very little of what it does is unnecessary, outside the area of defense.  But when it comes to promoting the general welfare and securing the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all its citizens, it has barely scratched the surface.

Why not?  It isn’t for lack of resources.  But it is a matter of priorities.  What I’m referring to is not really even on the list of priorities.  And that is for two very different reasons.  

For conservatives, they just don’t see the role of government as being more than providing for our defense, insuring domestic tranquility (i.e. order), and letting business and people be free to do pretty much what they want to do without government “interference” (that’s their definition of the blessings of liberty).  They are comfortable with government subsidizing business and farmers (a subset of business) in many ways; it’s individuals that they don’t think deserve government support.

For liberals, while they see the role of government very differently, as a source of help for those who need it, changing the fundamental status quo is not on their radar.  Whether that’s because they don’t see it as a viable option, or because it’s not something that has even entered their thought process, it’s just not there.  They are mentally and spiritually limited by the world as they know it.  They are not visionaries.  And what this country needs is visionaries.

How do we develop visionaries in the population and in our politicians?  It starts by not accepting the status quo, by understanding that there is something basically wrong with the way things are and have always been.  That what is going on is contrary to the basic tenets of our founding documents.  It means going back to the content of our education system as it pertains to civics.

But that is not going to happen.  And one reason why is that, as noted, you have such diametrically opposed intellectual approaches to our founding documents.  For example, on the one hand you have the thoughts expressed in my book, We Still Hold These Truths, published in 2004, which present our founding documents as primarily liberal in spirit.  On the other hand, you have Mathew Spaulding’s book of the same title, published in 2009, which argues for a conservative reading of those same documents.  And he castigates progressives for perverting those documents.

I don't think there is anything one can do to convince a Spaulding or any of his followers that the liberal interpretation of our founding documents is correct.  However, one can focus liberals/progressives on the fact that their position is supported by these documents.  And one can educate independents.  

I find it amazing not only that the Democratic Party has never taken my book to its heart and used it productively, they’ve never really taken notice of it, but that they haven’t come up with anything to counter Spaulding’s argument.  They have walked away from our liberal birthright and left this elemental source of strength to the conservatives.

This is what must change if there is to be any hope of bringing the force of our founding documents to bear on this central issue of social justice.  Only then will we have a chance to end discrimination, provide equal access to education, end the blight of substandard housing for the poor, insure voting rights for all, and correct many other wrongs.

Democrats Must Save America from Self-Destructing

I have never seen such an apparent deep split in the American people combined with such rage and intolerance towards the other side’s point of view.  This exceeds even the emotions generated by Vietnam.  Indeed, the ubiquitous nature of this rage is possibly worse than anything America has ever encountered.

But is what we are seeing and hearing a true reflection of the underlying reality, free of the passion of the moment?  If you ask people, whether on the Right or the Left, in red states or blue, what they feel about America, the answer will likely be very similar.  On the one hand, they love America for the rights we are guaranteed, the freedoms we are given to pursue our lives.  This universality is not just the stuff of folklore or political snake oil salesmen.  It is solidly based on our founding documents - the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.  

On the other hand, people are distraught, nay outraged, because they feel those rights and freedoms have been withheld from them while granted to others.  Each aggrieved group perceives that their rights are being denied or threatened by the exercise of some other group’s rights, or the government is favoring the other group over them.   And they are intent on claiming the rights and freedoms due them.

For example, Blacks are aggrieved because despite our laws on equal opportunity and treatment there has never been anything close to equal opportunity for Blacks in this country, especially the poor.  It starts with  poorly funded and neglected inner city schools, a function of government discrimination, and continues with the existence of private discrimination in much of the job market.  

Whites on the other hand are aggrieved for several reasons.  They see affirmative action resulting in Blacks with less qualification still getting job preference 50 years after the civil rights laws were passed.  They take affront at being labeled part of the “privileged class” just because they are white whereas they most certainly do not feel privileged.  Many are suffering economically and angry that the government’s free trade policies have sacrificed their jobs for the benefit of big corporations and their investors.  And to add insult to injury, while feeling neglected and ignored by government, they see that same government supporting the rights of people of color and the LGBT community.

Honestly, both sides are basically right in their perceptions.  Both have been treated poorly by the government.  Yet I firmly believe these conflicts are not inherent in the nature of things.  There is no reason given America’s resources and wealth and our democracy’s principle of “government of the people, by the people, and for the people” that everyone’s rights and freedoms cannot be met.

Why then have these problems existed for such a long time?  What is the source of this inequality, this discrimination, this neglect?

The problem is that we have a system of politics and a society that has been and remains stuck in a pre-democracy dynamic in which the have’s and the have-not’s were in constant struggle.  Where people of one persuasion or interest were in conflict with those of another, each trying to gain the upper hand.  Where one had to fight to get anything; there were no rights.  Certainly no universal equality.

It is a system and society not in sync with the “new” Enlightenment philosophy of equality expressed in our founding documents.  Indeed, those documents themselves, while they spoke of an aspirational equality, carried forward a decidedly unequal social system by leaving it to the states to decide matters such as slavery and the status of women.

While the law has evolved over the years to better reflect the philosophy of equality, and while society has also in many respects become more expressive of the principles of equality, there remain deep-seated antagonisms and distrust based largely on race/ethnicity and privilege but also gender and sexual orientation.  Our politics and society are still far from Martin Luther King’s dream “that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.’ … When all of God’s children … will be able to join hands and sing, ‘Free at last!  Free at last!  Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!”

For most of the 20th century, politicians did not overtly play to these antagonisms.  But during the last few decades, the Right began directly flaming this distrust for their benefit.  In our most recent election, Donald Trump masterfully played on the failures of our political system and people’s distrust to create a firestorm of rage that swept him into office.  In response, the left has unfortunately responded in kind.

Both sides have now assumed an “you’re either with us or against us” attitude and vilify the other.  There is no search for commonality or compromise across the political chasm (what used to be called the political divide).  

The danger of this rage has frequently been commented on, in recent op-ed pieces such as Sabrina Tavernise’s ”Are Liberals Helping Trump” and Nicholas Kristof’s “Fight Trump, Not His Voters” in The New York Times, as well as my posts here.  We are coming dangerously close to self-destructing.

Interestingly, all of these articles are addressed to progressives, both on the supposition that they should know better and be able to rise above the fray, but also because their actions are ultimately counter-productive.  They are driving moderate supporters of Trump … yes, there are many millions if not tens of millions of them … more into Trump’s arms.  Indeed, I believe they are pushing Trump himself more into the arms of the far Right because he has no place else to turn to for support.

Yet there is no question in my mind, despite the intolerance displayed on both sides, that the vast majority of Americans have an essential commonality.  See my post, “Yes, Virginia, There Is Hope - The Invisible Majority.”  Bottom line, they each want for themselves, as well as for all Americans, the opportunity to partake of the American dream; it should not just be for a select group.  They want an America secure from terrorist attacks and from everyday violence.  They want a government that listens to them.  The vast majority do not support a Muslim registry and they approve of an “earned” path to citizenship for undocumented Latinos.  And as has become very clear, they want access to reasonably priced, high quality, comprehensive health care.  A clear majority, even of Trump voters,  support reasonable gun control efforts.

To begin the process of healing, to prevent the chasm from growing even larger, I proposed in the referred-to post, as well as at www.americansolidarity.org, that progressives reach out to Trump supporters.   To not demean them.  Specifically, I suggested the following:

Recognizing that Trump supporters are not the bogeyman, everyone on the progressive/center side of politics should be not only open to, but arguing for a new Democratic politics that reaches out to and forms a bond with the average Trump voter (many of whom were formerly mainstay Democrats).  This means foregoing identity politics and recognizing that we are all in the same boat and we all either swim or sink together.  And it means recognizing the things in Trump’s agenda which we can and should support because they are good for America. 

We need to say to Trump voters, “We support Trump’s efforts to create good-paying middle-class working jobs.  We support his efforts to restore and improve the country’s infrastructure.  

We feel for workers whose lives have been shattered and who have not been listened to.  We understand that we must make government more responsive to the people. 

We know you are not racists or bigots.   You are upstanding citizens and we apologize that anyone has characterized you otherwise.  

But there are dark forces out there which must be countered, and so we ask you to stand up as Trump supporters and make clear that:

    - You support an earned path to citizenship for undocumented Latinos who don't have

    a criminal record, have worked and paid taxes, and speak English, 

    - You oppose a Muslim registry of U.S. citizens, 

    - You unequivocally disapprove of any violent acts and vandalism taken by individuals/

    vigilante groups against Muslims, Latinos, African-Americans, LGBT people, Jews, or 

    any other group,  

     - You support reasonable efforts to stop the sale of guns to those who have evidenced 

     that they cannot be trusted with the power of guns, and 

     - You support either changing or replacing Obamacare if that will provide improved 

     access to reasonably priced, high quality, comprehensive health care for all Americans.”

I stated in my 2004 book, We Still Hold These Truths, that America stands at a crossroad.  “There is a radical movement afoot to fundamentally alter the balance that our system has struck between private rights, the public good, and government.  The issue is not simply big versus small government, high versus low taxes.  At risk is the heart of our democracy, our historic values.”  

Until this past election, we were still at the same crossroad.  The 8-year term of Barack Obama did not, as many had hoped, change the dynamic of the aligned political forces but instead intensified them.  With the 2016 election, though, we have gone past that crossroad and are headed down a very dark path.  

There is a saying in the law that, “reasonable men may differ.”  We as a people need to find our way back to being “reasonable” men, with those on the left being able to agree to differ with those reasonable men who voted for Trump.  And vice versa; it does take two to tango.  We must seek out those areas where we agree. And where we don’t, we should agree to disagree … civilly.  

In a post of mine, “Darkness Before Light,” I argued that, as I have observed in 12-step programs, perhaps we needed to hit rock bottom before people are not just open to seeing the light but understanding that we must head towards the light, resolving these centuries-old antagonisms, if we are to survive as a nation.  Interestingly, at the end of Ms. Tavernise’s op-ed article noted above, she quotes a woman who is a registered Democrat but voted for Trump and is worried about the level of rage that is abroad in the country.  “Change doesn’t occur until you hit rock bottom, like an alcoholic, on his knees, begging for help.  I think we still have further to go.”  As I said in my post, I hope that is not the case.

We cannot allow our anger … yes, as a progressive I too am angry … regarding the 2016 campaign, the current President, his administration, nor radical Republicans in Congress, to lead us astray, to divert us from the American way.  That way, the way of our democracy, requires that all men be treated with respect.  Fight for what you think is right, but treat the opposing force with respect.  Name calling does not bring us any further towards our goal of a more just America.